Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, August 08, 2014

New York Times: The catastrophe of Iraq has been growing steadily worse for weeks, but by Thursday, it became impossible for the United States and other civilized nations to ignore it. Iraq's bloodthirsty Sunni extremists were threatening the extermination of tens of thousands of members of religious minorities who have refused to join the fundamentalist Islamic state the terrorist forces want to create. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, known as ISIS, drove Christians, Yazidis and other minorities from their homes by giving them a choice between religious conversion or slaughter. There have been reports of scores of civilians being killed.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

corky

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

So it was not surprising to hear President Obama announce Thursday night that the United States was dropping food and water supplies in northeast Iraq and that he had authorized targeted airstrikes against ISIS, if needed.

Obama made a wise policy call, and showed proper caution, by keeping his commitment not to reintroduce American ground troops in Iraq, but humanitarian assistance for the imperiled civilians was necessary.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Speaking at the White House, President Obama again pressed Iraqi politicians to resolve their differences. A move by Iraq's government to appoint a prime minister who could credibly unify the country and lead the counterattack against the extremists has stalled. That division, Mr. Obama said, plays into the terrorists' hands.

"After so many years in Iraq, Americans are justifiably skeptical about what military involvement can accomplish anywhere -- and the Middle East is so complicated that even seemingly benign decisions can have unintended consequences.

The United States, Turkey and other allies should move quickly to meet the Kurds' needs for ammunition and weapons as well as advice on more effectively deploying the pesh merga and integrating Kurdish operations with Iraqi security forces.

Under pressure from the United States, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq finally agreed this week to cooperate with the Kurds and to provide air support, and should continue to do so.

That will still leave Mr. Obama with the task of framing a broader strategy that involves Saudi Arabia, the Arab League and the United Nations, just to start."

Who else COULD do this? Certainly not Russia or China or any of the local players.

"Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry his own weight, this is a frightening prospect." - Eleanor Roosevelt

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-08 01:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

This will end badly.....

I am not saying boots on the ground, but without it, this is just prolonging the situation, not really solving it (which we can't do)......

What is interesting is this is finally on the Obama administration radar, they crossed into Iraq months ago, they are headed for Lebanon.

Its unfortunate that it has to be a complete humanitarian disaster before he does anything.......

much like our border...

"The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, known as ISIS, drove Christians, Yazidis and other minorities from their homes by giving them a choice between religious conversion or slaughter. There have been reports of scores of civilians being killed.

This has been known for at least a month....

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-08-08 01:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

#2

It's been going on for a very long time, it was in all the headlines weeks ago.... but there was not not a pending genocide of tens of thousands of people.

Besides the fact that everyone involved over there has been following ISIS before they even formed and this outcome has not been unexpected by any of them at all.

Republicans would have found a way to impeach him over it anyway.

They would have agreed he should have done it, like with immigration, then impeached him for using execute power, lmao!

"U.S. airdrops food aid to Iraqis trapped after fleeing militants

US cargo planes escorted by fighter jets dropped food, water and other supplies Thursday for tens of thousands of people who fled an advance by Sunni militant fighters in northern Iraq and are stranded on a barren mountain in danger of starvation, U.S. officials said."

www.latimes.com

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-08 01:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why now? Why not months ago when they were slaughtering entire villages, executing Christians, obliterating churches, shrines and mosques, and imposing Sharia Law everywhere to planted their flag? Did we just decide to abandon the Iraqis but defend the Kurds?

The same goes for Syria: it was a humanitarian crisis when there were 10K dead, and then 20K dead. Now there are 175K dead. At what point does that merit action? If 'never' is the answer, I'm good with that, but if you're going to intervene militarily using humanitarianism as the justification, you need to quit ignoring other humanitarian catastrophes and only intervening when it is politically expedient to do so.

Moving forward, ISIS/ISIL has now attacked Lebanon, although the Lebanese Army repelled them for now. They don't have the might they need to take on Iran or Saudi Arabia. We are now providing at least nominal assistance to the Kurds (which probably pisses off Turkey). Bounded on three sides, they will continue to butcher their way through Iraq, entrench themselves (which makes it impossible to remove them without resorting to ground forces) and then move in the only other direction they can - to the West.

#4 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-08-08 08:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hillary would go all in on this, as she was heartily for the war in Iraq the last time around.

#5 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-08-08 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why now? Why not months ago when they were slaughtering entire villages, executing Christians, obliterating churches, shrines and mosques, and imposing Sharia Law everywhere to planted their flag? Did we just decide to abandon the Iraqis but defend the Kurds?

#4 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-08-08

I was expecting something like this. There was going to be fallout regardless of what happened: intervention early, intervention on time, no intervention at all.

If Obama can prevent a genocide after dropping a few 500 pound bombs, then he's done something good. It's pretty much as simple as that.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2014-08-08 09:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

#6 But a) will he actually prevent it and b) why not use that same justification everywhere? Have we dropped 500 pounders on Boko Haram? In Sudan? In Syria? No. There's no political hay to be made there. I'm just saying there is no consistency in our foreign policy.

#7 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-08-08 10:01 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

First of all, has Iraq even asked for our assistance? We did recognize their sovereignty and respected their wishes to leave.

#8 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-08-08 10:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

The US doesn't care about massacres or thirsty-starving masses. never have never will. America doesn't act unless a trade route or pipeline is threatened. anything else is just a headline and a photo-op.

#9 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-08 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

The American empire invades a sovereign nation, murders thousands, and calls it "Preventing s Slaughter".

I call it "Hope and Change".

#10 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-08 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

the US has slaughtered more civilians than terrorism ever will.

#11 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-08 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not sure if this military action is good or bad, right or wrong. I AM sure that it wouldn't be necessary if it hadn't been for disaster dubya.

But the last thing anyone should do is listen to the NYT, who helped dubya trick the country into supporting the disaster in the first place.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-08 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

The other thing that is clear is that if obama helps these stranded people, the reps will attack him for it, and if he didn't help them, the repubs would attack him for it.

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-08 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But the last thing anyone should do is listen to the NYT, who helped dubya trick the country into supporting the disaster in the first place."

True. They were the liberal cheerleaders, along with Hillary, for that war.

#14 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-08 03:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

If it was ever our policy to destabilize an entire region, Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples of the good job we are doing. All minus the latter were former secular governments, albeit ruled by dictators, but at least the population didnt have to worry about car bombs, middle of the night beheadings, and mass executions. Both parties take blame for this current crisis, as well as the population that got duped by hysteria into supporting these boondoggles.

#15 | Posted by aescal at 2014-08-08 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

There's no political hay to be made there. I'm just saying there is no consistency in our foreign policy.

#7 | Posted by MUSTANG

In the past 25 years has there been consistency in our foreign policy? Africa typically doesn't rank - especially sub-Saharan - and never has.

#16 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-08-08 05:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Going in, killing those that need killing, and LEAVING, I could support.

But that is pretty much impossible in todays world of mission creep, so I can't support anything except airstrikes.

#17 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-08-08 09:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is the result of bad policy. Telegraphing that we were leaving at a date certain. They only had to wait.

#18 | Posted by Donald at 2014-08-08 10:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is the result of bad policy. Telegraphing that we were leaving at a date certain. They only had to wait.

#18 | POSTED BY DONALD

Rumsfeld?

#19 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-08 10:21 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Arming and supporting the Peshmerga (Kurds) is something we're also doing. The Kurds are the toughest fighters in Iraq.

20,000 ISIS is a relatively small force, but they spread terror by leaving beheaded heads on stakes in towns they topple, killing everyone who doesn't leave when they say, etc etc. Every country in the ME fears them and what they represent. It wouldn't be surprising to see Saudi Arabia and many other ME countries join in the effort to eliminate this brutal but small force. Time will tell ...

#20 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-08 10:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

BTW, thanks the Peshmerga and our air support, thousands of Christian and Yazidis have been able to leave the mountains to safety.

#21 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-08 11:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Send Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy, Wolfowitz and Addington. Make them fix the mess they made, then send them the bill.

#22 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-08-08 11:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

BTW, thanks the Peshmerga and our air support, thousands of Christian and Yazidis have been able to leave the mountains to safety.

POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

Where? Texas border?

#23 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-08-09 12:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

#20 AU,it wouldn't surprise me if the Saudis were supporting them.

#24 | Posted by bruceaz at 2014-08-09 12:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

#20 AU,it wouldn't surprise me if the Saudis were supporting them.

#24 | Posted by bruceaz The royal family wants to hold on. For that reason only I'd guess they don't support armed insurrections of any kind. Gives too many people too many ideas.

#25 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-09 12:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Somebodys supporting them

#26 | Posted by bruceaz at 2014-08-09 01:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

#20 AU,it wouldn't surprise me if the Saudis were supporting them.

#24 | Posted by bruceaz at 2014-08-09 12:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

Call me crazy but what do you want to bet Saudi Arabia is supporting ISIS so they can take over the oil in Iraq to have a reserve on hand when Saudi Arabia runs out. Also so the Shiite dominated government can't control it. Thoughts???

#27 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-09 01:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Somebodys supporting them

#26 | Posted by bruceaz

ISIS stole all the Iraqi weapons and vehicles when the Iraqi Army ran. Humvees, weapons, heavy weapons, etc. They've made their money through extortion and kidnapping until recently, when they looted an Iraqi bank for a few hundred million.

I just read the Iraqi government are giving the peshmerga (Kurds) arms now. Who could have seen that one coming a month ago?

#28 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-09 01:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

Call me crazy but what do you want to bet Saudi Arabia is supporting ISIS so they can take over the oil in Iraq to have a reserve on hand when Saudi Arabia runs out. Also so the Shiite dominated government can't control it. Thoughts???

#27 | Posted by LarryMohr

ISIS envisions an Islamic state encompassing the entire Middle East.

That wouldn't fit very well with the boozing, screwing, gambling House of Saud's plans to stay in power.

#29 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-09 01:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's my thought on why the Saudi royal family wouldn't back ISIS

#30 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-09 01:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

www.slate.com

Why the Iraq Mess Is So Awkward for Saudi Arabia

#31 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-09 01:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Financing ISIS in Syria was akin to nurturing a nest of baby king cobras that grew up

#32 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-09 01:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

You could say the same thing about al-Queda,AU,we were fighting a war with proxies then,just as the Saudis and Israelis now

#33 | Posted by bruceaz at 2014-08-09 01:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Absolutely, Bruce.

#34 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-09 02:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

You know I often wonder,..the shah was aPOS,,a brutak dictator....Batista ran a mafia thugdom..North Korea could feed their people if they didn't have such a large army,King Louis 14 too,back then.Putin watches too much game of thrones.Dammit Israel,the reasonb Hamas launches rockets is because nobody would give a ---- about them if they didn't .Its so easy folks.punctuation OFF

#35 | Posted by bruceaz at 2014-08-09 02:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

True. They were the liberal cheerleaders, along with Hillary, for that war.

--------

There aren't any liberals at the NYT anymore precisely because they would have stomped on this fascist piece of trash. see Chris Hedges.

#36 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-09 02:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nobody thought congressional approval meant we were going to war with Saddam in 10 minutes,it meant step down ----

#37 | Posted by bruceaz at 2014-08-09 02:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Saddam offered to go into exile after the vote.

www.nbcnews.com

#38 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-09 02:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Call me crazy but what do you want to bet Saudi Arabia is supporting ISIS so they can take over the oil in Iraq to have a reserve on hand when Saudi Arabia runs out.

Okay, I'll call you crazy. It just doesn't add up. ISIS wants to destroy the Kaaba, the box-like house you see people circling at Mecca. The House of Saud maintains the holy sites in Saudi Arabia for all Muslims, so they're pretty much in charge of ensuring that doesn't happen. www.huffingtonpost.com

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 03:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Financing ISIS in Syria was akin to nurturing a nest of baby king cobras that grew up
#32 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

See Also: Israeli support for Hamas in the 80s.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 03:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

We always justify our interventions of some high and mighty moral argument while leaving a trail of death and destruction that fails to achieve any success by any moral measure. Even atrocities like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge are a direct consequence of our failed interference in other people's business. We have achieved economic success for the men behind the curtain, however. That's the true story of US foreign policy.

#41 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-08-09 11:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

#41

Some people, like George McGovern, were able to discern between when we should act and when we should not.

www.theatlantic.com

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-09 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, known as ISIS, drove Christians, Yazidis and other minorities from their homes by giving them a choice between religious conversion or slaughter. There have been reports of scores of civilians being killed.

This has been known for at least a month....

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris

absoLUTELy it was....

and if the links coming across my computer are even CLOSE to what's going on....we're not preventing anything.....just yet at least..

#43 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-08-09 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Some people, like George McGovern, "

Stop pretending McGovern would have endorsed neo-con interventionism. That's a smear on his good name.

#44 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-09 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Some people, like George McGovern, "

Stop pretending McGovern would have endorsed neo-con interventionism. That's a smear on his good name.

#44 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-09 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

AMEN

www.npr.org

George McGovern, An Improbable Icon Of Anti-War Movement

Yet his surprise emergence as the peace candidate in the 1972 Democratic presidential primaries made it possible for him to seize the presidential nomination of America's oldest and largest political party.

#45 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-09 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

www.lewrockwell.com

In 1972, it was Democratic nominee George McGovern who would run on the neo-isolationist slogan "Come Home, America!" and win the endorsement of the New York Times and Washington Post.

#46 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-09 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"it was Democratic nominee George McGovern who would run on the neo-isolationist slogan "Come Home, America!""

Where's the McGovern of 2016? He wouldn't stand a chance in today's corporatist, rigged DNC primary farce.

#47 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-09 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Where's the McGovern of 2016? He wouldn't stand a chance in today's corporatist, rigged DNC primary farce.

#47 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-09 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

There isn't any. The DNC and the RNC are both beholden to the all mighty dollar. Their people not so much.

#48 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-09 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.democracynow.org

SEN. GEORGE McGOVERN: Well, some of the Democrats are supporting him.

AMY GOODMAN: Or, they are distancing themselves from him.

SEN. GEORGE McGOVERN: Well, that may be. I think that's wrong. I think we ought to get out of Iraq. I was saying we shouldn't go in there months before we went in there. A lot of thoughtful people were saying that, including General Wesley Clark. Other people were warning us that this was a trap, it would be easy to get into but very hard to get out, and I think that Congressman Murtha has come to that conclusion and had the courage to say, 'I was wrong, I don't want to see any more Americans dying out there. Let's get out and do it in a systematic way.'

#49 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-09 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"it was Democratic nominee George McGovern who would run on the neo-isolationist slogan "Come Home, America!""

--

'Isolationist' is a marketing term meaning not imperialist. i.e. not fascist.

Doublespeak.

#50 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-09 06:41 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

The wages of attacking Iraq and undermining Syria in order to weaken Iran.
The NYT ? The Iraq war cheerleaders ? Why should anyone listen to anything they have to say about Iraq ? Wilsonian b.s. Maliki should sort this crap out. He refused to sign the SOFA. Why should the US bail his arse out ? Esp since his co-religionists used the Min of Interior to persecute Sunnis. It's clear that IS has tactical and operational acumen being provided by ex Sunni IA soldiers.

#51 | Posted by tunde at 2014-08-09 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Stop pretending McGovern would have endorsed neo-con interventionism. That's a smear on his good name.

#44 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

"Which politician uttered the following words:

"Do we sit on the sidelines and watch an entire people be slaughtered or do we marshal military forces and move in quietly to put an end to it?" John McCain? Joe Lieberman? Scoop Jackson?

Wrong. The speaker was George McGovern, in August 1978."

From the link.

Stop pretending that stopping genocide is "neo-con invervetionism".

I know Cheney and Bush and Bolton in Iraq made some liberals so afraid that they cannot act when the time is right, as per George McGovern's view on Cambodia after Vietnam, but seriously...

...outright lying about who is a neocon and who isn't only waters down the real wrongness of their policies.

Enabling rwingers appears to be a Puritopian byproduct.

#52 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-09 08:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

"IS (an emerging theocratic state)/Iraq (a geographic expression now rather than a country) There is an old German military maxim that runs something like "if you have a serious problem, boot it!

My expectation is that having now seen an actual demonstration of the US willingness to use air power to defend the KRG and Irbil the IS military leadership cadre will decide that the best Course of Action (COA) is to occupy Kurdish towns as rapidly as they can. Expect to see an early maximum effort to take Irbil. The IS mobile force possesses tanks, APCs and artillery and the ability to use them. IMO their knowledge was hard bought in the Iran-Iraq War and at the Frunze Academy and other Soviet schools. IMO, ISIS is using military experts from the Old Iraqi Army (the one we disbanded) much as the Bosheviki used former Tsarist officers to organize and run the Red Army until the Blood Purges began in the 30s. Marhsal Tukhashevski was an eample of such a person. He was shot in the purge.
IMO IS is cleaning up its strategic rear and consolidating its new state. Some pathetic newsfool bleated today that "we thought ISIS was "over extended." I suppose that means that the Children's Crusade "experts" in the WH, State Department and media thought that to be the case.
An insurgent force that can; wage propaganda war, has lots of money, a coherent ideology and the ability to organize and operate armored kampfgruppen (battle groups) is a very dangerous opponent. IMO that force potentially threatens the state system throughout the Sunni Middle East and is a menace that must be halted.
To build an effective local coalition of forces against IS (a concert of the Middle East?) one must stop trying to unseat the existing governments. They are the only possible basis for such a coalition; Iran, Turkey, whatever government exists in Iraq, Jordan, Syria (Bashar), Egypt, Kuwait (for the basing), Saudi Arabia (for the money and basing), Qatar (for the basing). Unfortunately, to bring these forces together, Obama's government would have to acknowledge the folly of its college bull session foreign policy over the last six years. The Children's Crusade that is the Obama Administration in the NSC and State Department, driven by the social disease of utopian social science fantasies unseated Mubarak and thus began the unraveling of the system of nation states in the ME. In the absence of that system of governments, the underlying traditional loyalties which were suppressed by the nation states have re-emerged with a vengeance. "
^
This...........

#53 | Posted by tunde at 2014-08-09 08:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

""Which politician uttered the following words: "

Spamming that article doesn't make it less irrelevant.

#54 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-09 08:49 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The Children's Crusade that is the Obama Administration in the NSC and State Department, driven by the social disease of utopian social science fantasies unseated Mubarak

Gives Obama too much credit, while omitting the last President began the unraveling of the system of nation states in the ME by toppling Iraq and purging the government of capable bureaucrats.

But the gist of it is accurate. There's a reason there are so many strongmen in the Middle East and, really, throughout most of the world: Because they're really the only ones who can maintain the boundaries imposed by colonial powers a century ago.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-09 09:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Snoofy,
Agreed. But does this admin have the foreign policy clout to be able to stich such a broad based coalition together ? No way. The US is now seen as a fickle partner. US ME policy is in a mess because there are too many exceptions to a broader coherence of US policy. Eg, US-Egypt policy. Or the US policy towards Bahrain (or any GCC country for that matter). The hollowness of US commitment to democracy in the region(one of the buffet of reasons advanced for removing Saddam) has proven to be a neocon sleight of hand. And we know where their interests principally lie.
imo, the two elephants in the room of US ME policy are Saudi Arabia and Israel. US policy towards Iran will lock in once the foreign policy crowd figure out how to uncouple US strategic interests from the natural evolution that may await those two states. One, an increasingly militarily unrestrained settler state wirh an aggressive expansionist policy and the other an undemocratic theocratic monarchy that exports a deeply corrosive Islamic radicalism in order to protect itself. There's a war waiting in the wings I'd reckon.

#56 | Posted by tunde at 2014-08-10 05:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

But does this admin have the foreign policy clout to be able to stich such a broad based coalition together ? No way.

It shouldn't take anything more than IS to get literally everybody in the region to form an alliance to fight them.

I mean, really, if you can't overcome your differences to avoid getting beheaded, perhaps you've earned your fate.

The US is now seen as a fickle partner.

The US has been seen as a fickle partner since 1991 when the "uprising" against Saddam after Desert Storm was left to wither on the vine after being egged on by George Bush. That's just one example.

imo, the two elephants in the room of US ME policy are Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Israel will never send troops outside Eretz Yisrael to sort out their problems; it's just not what they do. I think it was you in some other thread who said Israel is held hostage by their Gaza policy and that prevents them from working with anyone who might have ever sent a Christmas card to Gaza, even in defeating IS who are by all accounts worse than Hamas, and that's saying something. Saudi Arabia's self-interest dictates they must join any sort of coalition against IS, and could be a base of operations, but at some point they have to reconcile the radicalism preached within their own country and with their consent, and what king wants to do that?

The only thing that will work, in my opinion, is getting nearly every nation that surrounds Iraq to buy into a plan to put down the Frankenstein's monster they've all created in one way or another.

It will need the heavy hitters. Iran and Turkey need to be part of any coalition. Turkey fears the Kurds though, so asking them to pick sides between IS and Kurds fighting IS might not go our way, especially when they have NATO to back them up should IS head north.

I also feel that Egypt is a trusted-enough power in the region to have a leadership role in whatever must be done. Anything that gets done by any regional player risks domestic blowback; perhaps Iran is the least susceptible on that front.

The timing of all this is Murphy's Law. Russia's about to "peacekeeper" Ukraine; Israel is puffing their chest in Gaza on schedule. It sure seems like a real possibility that the center cannot hold.

A nuclear capable Iran would really help stabilize things. That can't happen fast enough. For reasons that only made sense in 1981, we're still opposed to that.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-10 06:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hillary Clinton Rips Obama 'Failure' In Syria

www.theatlantic.com

Neocon Hillary says Obama is not interventionist enough.

#58 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-10 10:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

ISIS is the former "Al Qaeda in Iraq". If we hadn't invaded none of this would have happened either.

#59 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-10 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort